No, I'm not talking about Democratic hopes for a U.S. defeat in Iraq.

I just watched Ian Schwartz's video of James Dobson explaining why he intends to support a third party candidate even if it means a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The YouTube link is here. Or you can click on the image below (from the Fox News poll) showing the Dobson Hillary victory:

Noting the obvious (that the result would be a landslide victory for HRC, and that Dobson has already stated that in addition to not supporting Giuliani, he also won't support Thompson or McCain), Hannity asked Dobson whether he would accept the inevitable result of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Dobson admitted it would be difficult. However, in light of Giuliani's "personal moral background" (I'm assuming he means his divorced marital status), his positions on abortion and gay marriage, the question boils down to this:

"Why would we support someone when we would have to hold our noses?"

There's also Dobson's final rationale:

"I don't believe Giuliani can beat Hillary in the first place."

However, I think more nose holding is called for all around. Seriously, I think it's easier to understand Dobson if you can hold your nose and put yourself in his position. If Giuliani is actually elected president, Dobson will be in the position of being in the same political party as a president he abhors, and while he'll be free to dissent and scream all he wants about things like Giuliani's "personal background," he will seem increasingly isolated, increasingly shrill, and increasingly fringe. It is not in Dobson's political interest to be in the fringes of his own party; he wants to be a major mainstream dissenter from the Satanic regime of the Wicked Witch. Seen this way, his wanting (or acquiescing to) Hillary to be president is far from an argument that he likes her. Rather, it's like being able to select your favorite enemy in advance of the coming showdown in the great moral and cultural war. At best, Giuliani is seen as someone who compromises with evil. Hillary is the Real Deal.

Another factor is the economic one. While Dobson would be the last to admit it, his organization stands to gain far more if Hillary is elected than if Giuliani is elected. Hillary scares the living bejeezus out of the Dobsonite rank and file, while Giuliani is just another "RINO" of the type they've all seen and complained about for years. Little old ladies will be much more likely to write checks if they think they are saving the nation from evil than if they think they're helping to put pressure on a moderate Republican to stop him from possibly appointing a Gay Outreach Coordinator to the Assistant's Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of Undersecretarial Assistance. (Or whatever.)

From the Dobson perspective, a Giuliani presidency will be furthering the decline of an already muddled, RINO-ridden GOP.

Hillary as president will be seen as "clarifying." Electrifying, even. Why, with any luck, the "loser RINO GOP" might be forced to embrace Dobson's third party candidate as part of a "reconciliation" with the "betrayed base," and whoever the third party candidate is (Gingrich, maybe? He's divorced, but had the foresight to grovel to Dobson over it....) could become the certain-to-lose challenger to the Clinton incumbency in 2012. By that time, the nation's demographics will be hopelessly in the Democrats' favor, and the right-wing fringe can further circle the wagons and imagine themselves the only Americans left who can preserve traditional (read 1930s) values. Whether they'd see themselves as the equivalent of preservationist monks in the Dark Ages, or maybe engaging in a "Long March" to "take back the culture" I don't know. But the votes just aren't there for them to win with an acceptable candidate, they know it, and Hillary is in their best interests right now.

I know it's not scientific, but I'm wondering what readers think. So here's a poll: